Utility model Archive

The German Federal Supreme Court’s recent decision of August 1, 2023, X ZB 9/21 – Aesthetic treatment (“Ästhetische Behandlung”) relates to the balance of confidentiality interests and effective enforcement of a patent or utility model in independent evidentiary procedures.

An expert opinion was prepared based on an inspection of a potentially infringing product. This Supreme Court decision relates to a first instance court order on the provision of the expert opinion to applicant (i.e., the patent or utility model owner who requested the inspection). The Supreme Court held that such an order is appealable by means of immediate appeal (“sofortige Beschwerde”). According to this Supreme Court decision, immediate appeal is available as a legal remedy also when the first instance court orders that the expert opinion be disclosed to applicant despite the respondent (i.e., the alleged infringer) asserting a confidentiality interest (due to the expert opinion including information on trade secrets).

The Supreme Court also held that the respondent has to actively assert its confidentiality interest even if the Patent Office (here: the GPTO) has already provided a negative preliminary opinion on the validity of the asserted utility model or patent, in order to challenge the provision of the expert opinion to applicant.

The importance of this decision is evidenced by the fact that it will be published in the official collection of decisions of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGHZ).

In order to rely on a prior use right, the holder of the prior use right must have had in its possession an embodiment falling within the scope of the invention claimed in the asserted patent or utility model. Consistent jurisprudence by German courts has held that there are limitations on the modifications that are still covered by the prior use right. Modifications are generally not permissible if they constitute a more severe act of using the invention claimed in the patent or utility model than the original embodiment that was conceived by the prior use rights holder prior to the effective date of the patent or utility model.

A rule of thumb frequently invoked in infringement proceedings is that a modification is generally not permissible within the ambits of the prior use right if the embodiment as modified falls within the scope of a dependent claim of the patent or utility model, while the original embodiment did not. See, e.g., the discussion of the modified embodiment considered in OLG Düsseldorf, decision of 24.6.2021, 2 U 116/05 – Saugfähige Faserstoffbahn (“absorbent fiber web”).

The German Federal Supreme Court held in its recent decision of 20.6.2023, X ZR 61/21 – Faserstoffbahn (“fiber web”) that there are cases in which a modification which implements features of a dependent claim for the first time may still be covered by the prior use right (even though the embodiment as conceived prior to the effective date of the patent or utility model did not implement the features of the dependent claims). More specifically, the German Federal Supreme Court held that this can be the case if (a) the modification is not associated with a particular technical effect discussed in the patent or utility model, or (b) the modification would have been considered by the skilled person as a matter of routine as of the effective date of the patent or utility model.

The German Federal Supreme Court decision “Fasetstoffbahn” also addresses interesting procedural aspects related to specifics of utility model law.

Category: Utility model

Inspection in infringement proceedings

Prior use rights in Germany